1.         The EA in the present case is for execution of decree in RP/1404/1999, which was disposed off vide order dated 19.12.2002, the relevant order is reproduced below:

“Dated:19.12.2002

                                                                                                         ORDER

             This Commission has already taken a view in the case of Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. R.P. Chawla (Revision Petition No. 547 & 548 of 1997) that in the case the plot originally allotted cannot be given for any reason and an alternative plot is to be provided to the allottee, the same shall be at the rate at which the original plot was allotted to him. Keeping that in view, this Revision Petition will be disposed of in the above terms.”

2.         The possession of the plot in question (alternate plot allotted in 2008) i.e. plot no. 337 QP was taken over by the decree holder on 03.04.2023 in compliance of earlier orders of this Commission (order dated 07.06.2023 refers). However, the conveyance deed was still not signed and No Dues Certificate (NDC) was not issued by JD on the ground that an amount of Rs.4,14,000/- is payable by the DH as on 01.05.2023. Vide order dated 07.06.2023 directions were issued to JD to execute the conveyance deed subject to DH depositing Rs.4.14 lakhs in NCDRC, without prejudice to the rights of both sides as to whether the said amount is payable by DH to JD or not. Finally the conveyance deed has also been done and registered some time during January 2024 in pursuance to various orders of this Commission (order dated 03.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 refers).

3.         Hence, the only issue remaining to be decided in the present case is with respect to liability of the DH to pay Rs.4.14 lakh to JD (calculated by JD up to 01.05.2023), which has already been deposited in the Registry. During the hearing on 05.06.2024 learned counsel for JD categorically stated that this amount of Rs.4.14 lakh is only towards one item viz. the extension fee, which is levied as per rules of the JD authority for non-construction/delayed construction beyond the permissible period, which in the present case is two years from the date of offer of possession, and there are no other dues pending from the DH. JD vide their affidavit filed on 19.05.2023 has placed on record certain calculations of the amounts payable. A perusal of these calculations show that Rs.4,14,223/- is the amount towards extension fee, which has been charged with effect from the year 2010 when the annual rate was Rs.20 per sq. meter. The plot in question being of the size 285.95 sq. meter. Later on the rate of the extension fee got enhanced to Rs.60 per sq. meter in 2013, further to Rs.90 per sq. meter in 2016, Rs.125 in the year 2019, Rs.150 in the year 2022 and Rs.180 in the year 2023. Hence the total amount of Rs.4,14,223/- as per this calculation is towards extension fee only from the year 2010 to 2023. The contention of the JD herein is that the possession of the plot in question was handed over to the DH on 20.05.2008. However no such possession letter/document is on record. It is seen that letter dated 20.05.2008 to which our attention was drawn during the hearing is not the possession letter, neither it is the revised allotment letter. It is a demand notice for additional price. As per the terms and conditions of the original allotment letter issued on 08.11.1985, the allottee has to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession after getting the plans of the proposed building approved from the competent authority in accordance with the regulations governing the errection of the building (clause 18). Neither the revised allotment letter with respect to plot no. 337 QP is on record nor any document evidencing possession of the said plot 337 QP in May, 2008, as claimed by the JD, is on record. However, it is admitted by both sides that in accordance with the orders dated 19.12.2002 (decree in question) the alternate allotment is at the same rate and will be governed by the same terms and conditions as that of the original allotment letter dated 08.11.1985. It is the case of the JD that DH himself has delayed the possession of the plot and consequently the construction on it, which is evident from the letter dated 30.05.2008 from DH addressed to the JD authority vide which he has conveyed his rejection of the allotment of the said alternate plot. DH has contended that they did not take the possession of the plot in question as after the allotment, on their site visit, it was found that no such plot was identifiable on ground in a well demarcated form and it was adjacent to/part of harijan colony. In this regard DH drew our attention to various correspondence they made with the HUDA Authority [their letter dated 17.05.2017, 24.07.2017, 28.12.2020, 25.01.2021, 19.07.2021, 25.08.2021 and letter dated 13.08.2021 from JD addressed to the DH (name of JD having changed from HUDA to HSVP later on)] as well as copy of the communication dated 14.07.2017 from Administrator HUDA to Chief Administrator HUDA. During the hearing learned counsel for JD clarified that the amount of Rs.4.14 lakhs towards extension fee is calculated up to year 2023 and as the construction on the said plot has not been done still, they will continue to charge extension fee for future also till the construction is done as per rules of the authority. He clarified that charging of this fee is linked to the construction and not to the possession, although the date when this fee becomes chargable is linked to the possession i.e. two years after date of the possession.

4.         Learned counsel for DH stated that no formal revised letter for allotment of the alternate plot was issued. Hence the same has not been filed. They have placed on record the original allotment letter dated 08.11.1985 and details of the payments they made in pursuance to the original allotment letter dated 08.11.1985, starting with the first payment dated 24.04.1985 i.e. EMD with application. As per this a total amount of Rs.84,196/- has been paid and the original allotment price of the plot in question was Rs.68,190/-.

5.         After hearing both sides on 05.06.2024 judgement was reserved on the issue on whether JD is entitled to charge extension fee for delay in construction beyond two years from the date of possession in accordance with condition no. 18 of the original allotment letter as per the rates prevailing during different years, if yes, with effect from which date.

6.         We have carefully gone through all the documents relied upon by the parties and other relevant records. Clause 18 of the original allotment letter dated 08.11.1985 states that the allottee have to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession. Relevant extract of this clause is reproduced below:

“18. You will have to complete the construction within two years of the date of offer of possession after getting the plan of the proposed building approved from the competent authority In accordance with the regulations governing the erection for building. This time limit is extendable by the Estate Officer if he is satisfied that non-construction of the building was due to reasons beyond your control otherwise this plot is liable to be resumed and the whole or part of the money paid if any, in respect of it forfited in accordance with the provision of the said Act. You shall not erect any, building or make any alteration/addition without prior permission of the Estate Officer, No, fragmentation of any land or building shall be permitted.”

7.         As no revised allotment letter vide which alternate plot no. 337 QP was allotted, appears to have been issued, or if issued, is not on record, and both sides having raised no issues about it, and there is no dispute between the parties that in accordance with decree dated 19.02.2002, the alternate plot was to be provided by the JD authority at the same rate and would be subject to same terms and conditions. Hence, clause 18 of original allotment letter dated 08.11.1985 will remain applicable to the revised/alternate allotment of plot no. 337 QP also. Hence, we hold that DH is/was obligated to complete the construction on this plot within two years from the date of possession of the plot, after getting the plans approved from the competent authority, failing which the allottee has to apply to the Estate officer for extension of the period. The respondent authority, while granting any such extension, is entitled to charge extension fee/non-construction fee as per its laid down policy at the approved rates for the relevant period. Hence, we hold that though the JD authority is entitled to charge the extension fee/non-construction fee as per clause 18 of the allotment letter, but such extension fee can be charged only if the allottee fails to complete the construction within two years from the date of possession.

8.         The question for determination now is on which date the possession of plot no. 337 QP was handed over by the JD authority. As stated earlier, JD authority has not placed on record any document/evidence to show as to when the possession of plot no. 337 QP was handed over to the DH. Perusal of orders of this Commission cited in preceding paras show that possession of the said plot 337 QP was handed over on 03.04.2023 only in pursuance to orders of this Commission and the conveyance deed was executed sometime during January, 2024 only, that too in pursuance to orders of this Commission. Perusal of various correspondence relied upon by the DH shows that possession of this plot was not handed over by JD authority/ taken over by DH any time earlier. In this regard, it is important to refer to letter dated 14.07.2017 from “Administrator of JD Authority, addressed to the Chief Administrator of the JD Authority, extract of which is reproduced below. This letter also shows that possession of plot 337 QP could not be delivered to the allottee:

“Subject: Regarding urgent appeal to get alternate plot in lieu of the original allotted Plot No.890, Sector-21, Gurugram measuring 14 marla 31 years ago and no possession given despite full timely payment and winning my cases right upto the National Dispute Redressal Commission over 15 years ago.

Ref:- Estate Officer-I, HUDA, Gurugram letter No. 6140 dated 05.07.2017 on the subject cited above.

       In this regard, it is intimated the Estate Officer-I, HUDA, Gurgram has intimated vide letter under reference that residential plot No.890, Sector-21, Gurugram measuring 286 Sqm was allotted in the name of Dr. P.C. Kalra vide his office memo no.2490 dated 08.11.1985. But due to land in litigation the possession of the said plot could not be delivered to its allottee. Therefore, alternate plot No.337-QP, Sector-21, Gurugram in the same sector of the same size has been allotted vide his office memo no.91 dated 20.05.2008 on the same rates, terms and conditions. But the allottee vide his letter dated 30.05.2008(CP-190) has declined the alternate plot being undeveloped areas of Sector- 21, Gurugram adjoining Harijan Colony and requested for allotment of another alternate plot in other developed area. The Estate Officer-I has also intimated that no plot is available of the same size for allotment of alternate plot in the same Sector-21 and adjoining Sector 22, Gurugram.

       The Estate Officer-1, Gurugram has further intimated that the matter has been re-examined as per policy for exchange of plots and sent the proposal for allotment of alternate plot as per new instructions of HQ in the prescribed performa for allotment of alternate plot duly filled in alongwith list of available clear vacant plots of the same size i.e. 14 marla in the adjoining Sector-23-23A, Gurugram duly marked on the enclosed demarcation plan for the allotment of alternate plot.

Keeping in view of the above facts, it is requested to accord the necessary approval for allotment of alternate plot in lieu of Plot No.890 & 337-QP, Sector-21, Gurugram measuring 14 marla out of available clear vacant plots of the same size i.e. 14 marla in the adjoining Sector-23-23A, Gurugram at an early date and convey the same to this office for taking further action.

This has been issued with the approval of Administrator.”

                                                                                                                                                                               (Emphasis supplied)

9.         After careful consideration of all new records, we are of the considered view that allottee is entitled to a period of two years for completion of construction from the date of possession, which took place on 03.04.2023 only. Hence, JD authority is not entitled to charge any extension fee/non-construction fee from the DH till 02.04.2025 (2 years from the date of possession). Beyond 03.04.2025, if DH fail to complete the construction after getting the plans approved from the competent authority, in accordance with the provisions of clause 18 of original allotment letter, JD Authority will be entitled to charge the extension fee with effect from 03.04.2025 as per its laid down policy at that point of time at the rates prevailing at that time.

10.       Hence, we hold that JD authority is not entitled to charge any extension fee from DH in respect of said plot no. 337 QP till 02.04.2025. Hence, DH is entitled to get the refund of Rs.4,14,000/- deposited with this Commission in pursuance to this Commission’s order dated 07.06.2023, along with interest accrued on this amount in case NCDRC has put this amount in an interest bearing FD with any bank. JD shall issue the requisite No Dues Certificate (NDC) to DH within two weeks from the date of this order (if not issued earlier).

11.       In view of foregoing, possession of plot no. 337 QP having been taken over by DH and conveyance deed having been already executed and issue of liability of DHs to pay of extension fee having been decided as per this order, we hold that decree in question has been fully satisfied. Hence, EA/106/2022 in RP/1404/1999 stand disposed off. Registry of NCDRC will release the amount of Rs.4.14 lakh deposited by DH with this Commission along with interest, within one week of this order and JD shall issue the NDC within two weeks of this order. Further, in case JD has still not paid the cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed vide order dated 25.10.2023 as per his undertaking given on 05.06.2024, the same shall be paid within one week from date of this order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 12% per annum till the date of payment.

12.       Pending IAs if any, also stand disposed off.